in a departure from prior dietary guidelines, nutritionists and food scientists were not selected to serve on this dgac. understandably questions are being raised by the fact no food industry scientists were included in the dgac committee. after the dgac had disbanded, the former advisory committee members decided to hold a public event acting in their capacity as dgca members which they were not according to the act. based on the charter, is it your responsibility to make recommendations to both of your departments, which is then developed for final recommendations for the public. it is, however, not the responsibility for the dgac to education the general public on a report that still needed to be considered by the hhs before claiming nutritional

recommendations were based on dietary guidelines. secretary burwell, what instructions were given the advisory committee members regarding the advisory committee's disbandment? >> with regard to the specifics of the disbandment, i can get back to you, congressman, with regard to the direction that was given to review the science with regard to the issues that were in front of them with regard to the dietary guidelines and present a report about that. so with regard to the question of disbandment, i don't know what, if any, specific direction was given, but i think the point that you've made, which is this is about an advisory committee producing a document, an independent group of people producing a document, that then is an element in the basis is what their role is. >> was the role to then go out

and start doing a road show on their recommendation? is that a part of the scope of that committee? >> with regard to what followed -- what we followed at the department and what i know about is once we received the committee's recommendations and those became public that there was a public comment period. that was the part that we have both been focused on and the 29,000 comments that have come in from the public as well as when we heard from you all that you asked for an extension of the public comment. secretary vilsack and i quickly agreed that was something we thought was an important thing to do. that's the part of the process in terms of public input. >> one is -- did they follow the guidelines, and what steps were taken to make sure the committee followed the law and then from an ethical standpoint once you've served as your capacity of that advisory committee and made your recommendations, what is your responsibility in moving forward and one of the things we don't want is these advisories

turn this into a profitable situation on their behalf because of their participation on that advisory committee. >> with regard to voluntary, nonpaid, they all have to file financial disclosures on an annual basis as they go through this process and so those are all things we want to protect against. with regard to the specific question of a press briefing or some kind of briefing, i apologize, not familiar with that, as i said. we have focused on the public comments and the steps and process that we are following. >> time has expired. mr. scott for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'm very concerned that you're not using the most relevant, basic, and the best science related information in formulating these guidelines. you certainly did not use some of the most recent peer reviewed and published nutrition and diet related science. it was not even considered by the advisory committee. and not even considered by the

advisory committee when they were finalized in the report. that's a fact. and, mr. vilsack, you said you were using the best information. your quote was we have the best informed opinions, but if you're not using the most recent peer review, that information that is there and your committee has not even agreed to put it into the final report, so maybe you all can give me some level of confidence that your staffs and you will take into consideration the strong scientific evidence with the final policy document even though it was not included in the evidence-based library throughout the working group process. >> congressman, can you be specific about which study you're talking about? >> i'm talking about the scientific study that came out

that gave evidence that certain things were very important. let me just give you one example. let's look at the whole issue of the involvement of sugar and how it's not even included. why, for example, that low calorie sweeteners is not being recommended when the study pointed out that low calorie sweeteners could be used to lower weight, to be able to help with what is called adiposity and is not even being used. what's wrong with low calorie sweeteners that can be used and it's not even in the report? >> congressman, let me try to respond to the question as best i can. first of all, when you have a process that is every five

years, you're going to have to have at some point in time a cutoff of what information you consider because theoretically the minute before we published the guidelines somebody could publish a study and you would be criticizing us for not taking the latest science into consideration. there has to be a cutoff time in terms of consideration. having said that, over 4,000 studies were reviewed, 300 manuscripts reviewed and went through a gold standard for appropriateness and efficiency of the study. i think it is unfair to the committee and unfair to the process to suggest that we're not looking at the science. we are. number one. now number two, as far as sugars are concerned, look here is the problem. our children, 15% to 17% of what they consume is sugar and so obviously we're looking for ways in which we can reduce that and

i think what they were recommending if you have sugar in your diet, you ought to at least look for the most nutritionally dense foods that you possibly can consume for that sugar. that you don't use empty calories to obtain it. you could have chocolate milk versus a low cal drink. you get more nutrition bang for your buck out of that process. and that's what they were suggesting. >> but you are familiar with that report, the added sugars working group said that moderate and generally consistent evidence from studies conducted in adults and children supports replacing sugar containing sweeteners with low calorie sweeteners to reduce calorie

intake, body weight, and adiposity. why the dgac, the guidelines for america would then recommend that consumers not -- you've used this evidence, pointed to where it could be helpful but then the committee represents that they not use low calorie sweeteners to reduce added sugars. all i'm simply saying is, if this report is going to have value for the welfare of the american people and you all say you're using the most recent information then this clearly contradicts that. >> there are two different things. one is what the advisory committee has in its report and what we do in the guidelines. the specifics of that as we said are not something we received recommendations. my understanding of what is in the committee report with regard to the question of substitution

of the drinks is that not enough evidence exists one way or the other to make a recommendation and that is where the committee left the issue of the substitution. >> congressman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you all for being here. you made reference to the fact you take these comment periods seriously and that you consider these comments in your guidelines making process. i take you at your word. one area of concern to me and my district is in the dietary guidelines the recommendations regarding red meat. the current dgac report recommends that americans consume less red meat. will your agencies be reviewing studies submitted during the comment period that address the recommendations for red meat

both pro and con and can you tell me more about that? >> do you want to take that? >> in terms of red meat, i think it's fairly clear there's a recognition that lean meat is and should be part of a healthy diet. i think the challenge is to understand that as americans if we look at the obesity epidemic that we're confronting in the country that some of us are consuming more calories than we should. in relationship to the overconsumption of calories and one way to reduce the overall consumption is to eat less of certain things. and within that category would be red meat but that's by no means the only category. so i want to be clear here -- >> i don't understand. i'm sorry, mr. vilsack, why would you include in that category red meat? why wouldn't you say anything that takes you over a caloric level that's unacceptable you shouldn't eat.

why would there be a category of things not to eat? >> because of the importance of having balance in terms of what you consume, in terms of what a healthy diet consists of. again, remember what this is. it's a set of guidelines which is designed to give you the best chance of reducing cardiovascular, cancer. and chronic diseases. >> wouldn't red meat be part of a list of things you should eat as long as you eat lean? >> it is. it is. that's what i'm saying. >> i'm sorry. i thought you said you put it in a list of things not to eat. >> no. sir, what i said was if you're concerned about overconsumption of food generally, then obviously you're going to suggest that people should eat less of something that they are eating a lot of. that's the key. to suggest that we're not going to have a guideline, i think it's fair to say regardless of the fact the guidelines aren't fixed yet, that lean meat is going to be part of a healthy diet. there's no question about that. >> the advisory committee's

recommendation on this is exactly the same as 2010. so i think the secretary's comments hold. the secretary's comments are reflected, i have fiesta ware, the colorful pilates, my mother used those. the plates that i have for my mother and the one i got for my wedding, they're a different size reflecting the issue that we as a nation -- i just think that's a visible thing that people see. my mom's plates, they're littler. the ones i have from her. the ones i got. and this gets to the issue of the totality that we need to work on. at the same time that we think about the nutritional content. so we've got too much and we have to get the right nutritional content. i think what everybody wants is an opportunity to be able to have guidelines to do that and i think that's what the my plate hits are about and everything is about. being the mother of an 8 and 6-year-old and having worked for the largest grocer in the country, walmart, the time --

average time for a working mom or dad is 20 minutes. your ability to get in there, get it done, and try and do it in a way that's healthy for your children, you need ease in decision making. this is step one. it's just the guidelines. how it gets translated into other things are the next steps and i think that's what the secretary's comment about what this is and what this isn't and why we want something that is useful for working families who are just trying to get this right for themselves and their children. >> thank you both. i yield back. >> mr. walsh, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank both of you for being here for the work you do and i appreciate that last comment, too, as a father of a young son and someone i supervise the lunch room for 20 years and you see that side of things and how the school lunches impact. i think you brought up great points and this is an important hearing. i think articulating what this is and isn't is really important because at the heart of this

with so much information americans are going to try to find it from their uncle's e-mail to dr. oz and others, they're looking for the gold standard on what makes a difference. we look at the cost of obesity estimated at $150 billion and $200 billion a year. this is an important subject. we need to help people find the information. they're busy. there's lots of it. and that's why i think the questions that are coming up from colleagues, the integrity of your suggestions as many of us saw and still do believe as the gold standard on how this gets done and valid concerns about decisions we make here. in full disclosure i have the ninth largest agriculture district in america, lots of pork, milk, turkeys and all of those things. when we make those decisions they have an economic impact. the concern is valid. it's warranted. i think we have a responsibility

to move head long into this, to help the american public get it. so i think for me it's more of a statement on this. we're concerned on process and hearing that. it's important to hear both of you articulate that and important for the american public to know they can trust these as guidelines for them and they're getting to make decisions for their own family based on them. maybe what i would do is just ask you when you're hearing on the process, do you feel the concerns you're hearing from members on the totality of the evidence and things, are you comfortable if those are included when you make your guidelines? you're hearing members talking of things that aren't included, specific commodities not in that? are you comfortable? secretary burwell, i'll start with you. >> i think, yes, we are including these comments and whether that's the blog that we issued yesterday, we'd had a number of questions about that sustainability issue or the tax issue that we tried to address here today that we are across

the board hearing and listening and i think you can be assured that the questions that you all are asking us are the questions we will be asking our teams as the recommendations come forward and whether that's -- it was mentioned cranberries and the issue of something that's a high nutrient, has high nutrient value and the question of how that interrelates with added sugar and how we think about those issues. your questions become our questions. the comments that came in, as the secretary mentioned, there were a number of repeat -- 8,000 were probably singular. there were 19,000 comments on sustainability. 97% of those comments, we were clear and transparent, were positive and that we should include sustainability as part of the dietary guidelines. and i say that to make the point that we want to hear, we're going to ask the questions, and then based on what the dietary guidelines are on the scientific evidence, that's how we will go about making the decisions.

>> i'd only add that the debate we're having here and the debate taking place outside of this room is a reflection of people's interests in where food comes from, how it's produced, who is producing it, who is benefiting from it. and i think that's a healthy debate for us to have in the right context. i think it's a healthy debate in the context of development a farm bill. in the context of conservation, in the local and regional food system effort, all of those are avenues and vehicles for having that conversation and we are having that conversation and we should have that conversation. this, however, is about dietary and nutrition and that's what we're going to focus on as we develop these guidelines. >> i appreciate that point of view. i'm not going to miss this opportunity with my last 40 seconds, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, off topic but i'm going to use it, sequestration, i'm going to ask my folks are

out there if you could help me. >> 6.8% reduction. across the board regardless when they came into the office or when they -- >> what they're hearing is true, there will be a reduction? >> yes, unless something happens with sequester. >> i yield back. thank you. >> mr. gibbs? >> i have to tell you, hearing the ranking members' comments, i agree with about everything said. why are we doing all of this, if it's really necessary? i make the comment that there's a lot of information out there for consumers. you have the medical association, the cancer, heart, all kind out there. but i do -- i am encouraged to hear you say that the process to make sure the tax, sustainability issues aren't part of this, because they shouldn't be. i guess my only demand, quote, demand would be use common sense and say moderation that i think

people out there can make a lot of decisions on their own. there's a lot of information out there. i think these guidelines should be common sense things that if you have a weight problem, you need to lower your calorie intake. that's my comments. i won't ask how much the process costs. i can just imagine. secretary vilsack, i want to ask you these guidelines are supposed to be guidelines and how does that affect the school lunch program? we've seen the school lunch program turned on its head and reports of certain school districts that want to get out of the program and are these guidelines part of that effect of determining what's happening with the school lunch program? >> the school lunch program is obviously focused on compliance with the healthy free kids act which passed congress in 2010. and in that congress directed us to do a better job in terms of the quality and nutritional value of those meals. more fruits and vegetables, more whole grains, more low-fat dairy

and less fat, sugar and sodium, and we are complying with that and, in fact 95% of school districts have been certified as following the standards. surveys of children, surveys of school administrators, surveys of parents and the public all indicate strong support for what we're doing and we're helping school districts that are struggling through a series of programs, team up for success, where we're seeing mentoring schools, struggling schools linked up with succeeding schools and finding good success with that program as well. so the dietary guidelines help to inform as they do with some of the other nutrition programs, as they do with the department of defense in developing what they're going to serve our military, these dietary guidelines help to inform the process. >> okay. i'm really concerned with what's happening with the school lunch program. i'm hearing issues out there that kids aren't eating. the food is going to waste. i guess when i think back on it, there were kids that i wouldn't eat that i love to eat today. there's different behaviors. >> i'd say a couple things about that.

number one, there are several studies, the university of connecticut, harvard public health school that suggests food waste is not as significant as it has been reported and, in fact, is no greater than it was prior to the new guidelines. number two, it is a matter of time. there is some research to suggest if kids are given more time to eat, there's less food waste and the timing of the meal in terms of whether it's before or after recess may also impact that. and then finally, interesting conversation with the president of tufts yesterday, they did away with food trays at tufts and what they have found that has reduced significantly the amount of food waste because kids come in with a tray and they feel they have to fill up the tray as opposed to a plate. they fill up the plate, they get satisfied, they don't go back for seconds, there's less food waste. there's an opportunity for us as a nation to reduce food waste but i don't think it's a reflection or indication of the new school. >> when usda is working on the school lunch program, is there

much discussion about physical activity? i think that's probably maybe more so than what -- especially in kids. >> we have over 6,000 schools that have now been certified under the u.s. healthier school challenge which is an effort on our part to encourage both calories in and calories out. and we reward and acknowledge school districts that are doing a good job of balancing nutrition and exercise. we also have an interesting relationship with the dairy association and the nfl on their fuel up to play 60 program so there is an emphasis on exercise. >> secretary, a comment about sustainability. my only comment would be some of that gets a little weighted by certain agendas, by certain organizations who saw this in the water rules -- the waters of the united states. we saw a lot of comments come in and that was orchestrated.

you have to take those agendas out there and i think just so you're aware of that, some of those comments are sometimes subject to criticism. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank you both for being here this morning. on august 24th, they asked for input as to how to inform the public about the 2015 dietary guidelines. i think that's a great idea. because so many americans really do not understand and are confused about the guidelines and the dietary patterns. tell me how you are planning your messaging around the guidelines. and if you have any just straightforward suggestions as to how americans can improve their eating habits. >> well, we take the guidelines and incorporate it into our my plate initiative which is

secretary burwell referred to it earlier. it's an opportunity for us to visually give people an idea of what a healthy plate looks like. the choose my plate website is also part of our effort to try to do outreach. we also have a super tracker program that's basically if you are struggling with weight -- i have it on my iphone. it basically gives you daily updates and suggestions on how you might be able to control your weight, tips on substituting foods and so forth so you have a healthier balanced diet. there are a series of ways in which we incorporate the information from the guidelines in our educational materials which we then disseminate through a variety of mechanisms, social media and legacy media. >> thank you. how many american households do you believe are at risk for food insecurity? and how can the 2015 dga address the critical needs of our most vulnerable populations?

>> well, i can tell you, our focus has been obviously on children. there are 15.8 million children who live in food insecure homes. that number is down, which is good news. we obviously still have work do. there are a variety of ways in which we can provide help and assistance. some of the ways are the snap program and expansion of summer feeding. weekend feeding programs during the school year. there's an opportunity for us to also work with day care facilities and childcare facilities to ensure youngsters in the facilities get decent snacks. we mentioned the school lunch program. unfortunately, a lot of kids today get half or at least a third in some cases half and in some cases all of the calories they consume in school. to the extent we can do a good job of not only providing school meals, breakfast but after school snacks through our snack program, these are all a variety of ways to provide help. we're trying to find creative

ways for families to extend their snap dollar by giving them tips on how they might be able to use fruits and having tables effectively in recipes. making access to farmers markets more available. over 6,200 farmers markets today. that's an increase in the number now have the ept card to allow snap beneficiaries to access farmers markets. >> which by the way works very effectively. i have it in my district. i thank you for that. lastly, tell me how important it is to maintain the five-year cycle for the dietary guidelines so that americans really do get the benefit of the current science for diet and health. >> i think we think that the five-year review is a very important part of doing many of the things that we're being asked to do, which is make sure that we have the most up to date science and make sure that we're listening to the public. because it's a formalized process that we do hear from the public. and there are those opportunities. i think while it's in statute -- that's why a big part of why we do it. i think we would agree it's

important to have points in time where you do the work and settle and do the analysis and the listening. so i think we think that updating it on a regular basis on a five-year cycle is important. >> i agree. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. scott, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i think as we talk about the reports, the credibility of the report is arguably the most important thing. it doesn't matter how much time and money went into it if we have a credibility gap, we have a problem. there are certainly some questions about the fact that miss miland was from the private sector. i read her resume. 30 years at one of the major institutions, certainly qualified in every way, shape and form from her academic career to be there.

but there are questions about the fact that she's now a member of the private sector chairing the committee. historically, we have not allowed industry representatives on the panel. and i recognize that she doesn't represent, for example, the cattle industry or the corn industry because we would believe that there would be the assumption that there would be bias in the opinions of people who represented a certain industry on the panel. when we see issues like -- when i see issues like tax on soda and other things being recommended, it seems to me that ideology is taking precedent over science. and that creates a tremendous credibility gap as well. and i would just -- you know, as

we go forward, how are we going to -- how do we make sure that we don't have that credibility gap in the report? because the cdc and the others do use this information to send out recommendations to the american public. if the nutrition evidence library is not being used, how do we guarantee the credibility of the report? >> do you want to speak to the nutrition library? >> yeah. >> with regard to the credibility is a very important element of the trust of what we have in front of us. and i think that's why we are having the conversation in the places where we can provide clarity, we do. as well as providing clarity -- that's a little bit of some of our follow-up questions about, there is a scientific approach to what documents are included, how they are included. that's the standard of scientific research, the gold standard is used. i have checked even with our economists, have them come in and look at it. >> can i ask a question there?

if the standard is scientific research, how do recommendations for tax on sodas get into the report? >> i think it's important to reflect that i think in the advisory committee's report there wasn't a recommendation. it was an articulation that some use policy. i don't think there were recommendations. they did not make recommendations. but i think with regard to the issue that's been raised, i think when we get to the dietary guidelines, how we take what we are given, that is one input and use it will be an important part of establishing a process that i think people believe in. >> i'm down to a minute. i would like to hear what secretary vilsack has to say. i would suggest that when you see those things in the report and whether it's a jump to conclusion or not, there's a belief then that the people on the committee entered with a bias in some way, shape or form and were searching for the science to back up what they already believed to be true instead of using the best

available science, whether it's true or not, we can debate. but there is that -- there's a credibility gap from those things working their way into the report. >> congressman, i would like just simply to again emphasize, there is a fundamental difference between the advisory committee's report and the guidelines. and there is confusion out there for some reason people seem to think that the report equals the guidelines. it does not. it is one aspect of information that will be taken into consideration relative to the dietary nutrition guidelines that we have to put together. number two, the national education library was used. and there's an extensive process involved in accumulating information and putting it through a filter, if you will -- >> secretary vilsack, i'm down to 30 seconds. i think it was used for 30%. there was at least -- the reports, a tremendous number of things were not taken from that library. i have a quick -- this is a text

i got from a dad yesterday that i know very well. he is saying that their school can't sell candy bars, which they used to do to help pay for a trip. they're being told from the local school system that that comes from the federal government that they can't sell candy bars to raise money. >> that's not true. folks can sell outside of school, which is what these candy deals are, outside of school. there's no prohibition. there are exceptions and waivers that can be granted. often it's not the federal law. it can be a state law that is that. >> i don't think we would have that. >> that may be the case. then folks are mistaken about that. >> thank you, sir, for clearing that up. >> five minutes. >> thank you. secretary vilsack and secretary burwell, thank you for being with us today. thank you both for your respective agency's work on the report. i know that this is no simple undertaking.

i appreciate the fact that it takes and requires months and months of scientific analysis and consideration of thousands of stakeholder comments and collaboration. i want to say that i appreciate the process that the advisory committee went through. i think it's a solid process, one that was open and included, as you mentioned, many opportunities for the public to weigh in. i think it's important to kind of put this in perspective here. my colleagues understand that in this country today, one in three school-age children and adolescents is overweight and has obesity. more than one in three american adults suffered cardiovascular disease and diabetes. we can do better. we're all talking about here today, this is an attempt for us to get it better. if people aren't interested in the well-being of our citizenry

and all they are interested in is the bottom line, they should be supportive of what you are talking about today, because at the end of the day, healthier people mean lower healthcare costs. we all benefit here. you mentioned earlier that -- you referred to the hhs blog yesterday where the issue of sustainability were taken off the table. for inclusion in the final guidelines. i get that's the case. i respect your decision. but this is an important issue. i think you both have acknowledged that. sustainability somehow in this congress is a dirty word. i don't get it. but it's important. and we ought to be taking about sustainability when we're talking about issues of diet and food security. and i do think that's -- that it is important that we start this conversation about this issue in the context of dietary guidelines. i appreciate that both of your testimonies do a good job of emphasizing the importance of

nutrition on disease prevention and putting the recommendations into context. in congress, we ought to be focusing on prevention as a way to reduce healthcare costs and improve well-being and economic productivity. we should be highlighting what the science says on good nutrition for our kids and our families. i have an op ed here that was in today's hill newspaper penned by the presidents of american academy of pediatrics and the american medical association. it's titled, physicians perspective, keep politics out of dietary guidelines. i would like to insert that in the record. in it they talk about the importance of dietary guidelines and the soundness of science used to inform them. i think the issue is raised, you know, sometimes science changes. it does. everything changes. we know more today than we knew yesterday. our research techniques have improved over the last ten, 20, 30 years.

so when we learn the latest science, then we need to make the necessary adjustments. but as you know, some of the biggest critics of these guidelines are from industries that produce the least healthy foods. from special interests with questionable credentials. reading about some billionaire from texas who is a former enron executive. who is funding some initiatives about what you do. i don't know what they know about dietary guidelines. but they are a powerful special interest out there trying to raise issues of credibility, trying to question science. i just would conclude by saying, i encourage you to keep first and foremost the health and well-being of our kids and citizenry in the forefront as you move forward and maybe in my last minute you can talk -- explain to me about if we all improved our diets, what would be the impact on the rates and

costs for diabetes, obesity and heart disease? secretary burwell? >> i think with regard to when i examined medicaid and medicare costs over the ten-year period and as a trustee as one goes out over periods of time, heart disease and something that we know about how to do and diabetes are two very, very large cost drivers for us as a nation. they are cost drivers because those are conditions that can continue over an extended period of time and especially as we have a population that lives longer, which is a good thing. but the idea that these are costs that are controllable. i would also say that in my engagement with the private sector and ceos of companies -- i'm sure you hear this in your districts. they talk about wellness. the reason they are focused on this and want to engage with us is because they are putting initiatives in place because they are starting to see -- i was just with nam this week and had one of the ceos who says she has done it for almost ten years.

she has the analytics to show it. those are analytics companies can make decisions on. we want to see those to see if they are worthy enough for us to make decisions on the taxpayers' money. it's across the board in the public sector spending and private sector spending on the health issues. diabetes and heart disease are two of the leading costers we have. both publicly and privately. >> secretary burwell has a hard stop at 11:30. i ask for consent to go to four minutes so we give everyone a chance who gets here. mr. crawford for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. kind of keeping on that subject, a lot of attention has been paid to the dietary guidelines and the fact that they are guidelines. they're not rules. aim correct in that?

>> yes, they are guidelines. that are used as a basis for policy decisions. >> they are used pretty hard and fast on rule making then, correct? >> it depends on which programs. so, for instance, school lunch programs in our area, the administration for community living in terms of meals on wheels and those programs, they're used and they are applied in different settings in different ways. >> we have heard a lot of talk about the school lunch program and it seems that -- i know my colleague mentioned he had gotten a text just in the last few minutes. i've gotten phone call after phone call after phone call once the new school lunch program was implemented fully in 2012. there's been very little attention paid to how we roll this out and apply it rigidly to snap program. so it seems like using the argument that what we can be pro active and we can help to

regulate the food that people eat that we can control, the secretary mentioned department of defense and meals that our soldiers, sailors, airmen receive, we mentioned the school nutrition program, meals that our students receive. but we're not talking about actively engaging in how we do a better job in administering the snap program with regard to the sugary drinks that are purchased and the other things that are bad according to the guidelines. why aren't we doing a better job of actually going in and proactively engaging in rules that help us do a better job on dietary structure as it applies to snap program? >> well, first of all, we are trying to address this through a variety of mechanisms. the farm bill provided for the food nutrition and security initiative which is designed to provide assistance and help for snap families to purchase more fruits and vegetables.

the expansion of access to farmers markets is giving them that opportunity. we are looking at a -- we had a database research based program to determine what would actually provide direction for snap families in terms of purchasing nutritionous food, making nutritionous choices. we found incentives work. also, there's a fairly serious technology challenge in terms of trying to prohibit people from using snap for certain products. >> let me stop you right there, because i know that our travel card will deny a purchase if you try to fill up your car on official business with your travel card and then put a snickers on there, it will decline the purchase. i know the technology exists that we can do a better job in administering what it can be used for. >> there are 300,000 products sold in a grocery store. >> we ought to identify the ones that aren't allowed. >> there's the problem. sugar drinks? does that include 100% apple juice? >> that's my question. why are we not addressing that? >> do you want to exclude that? >> i'm asking you.

we're not marking up a bill here. i'm trying to get feedback on why the guidelines are not more rigidly utilized in the snap program when they are in the school nutrition program. >> they are used in the snap program in terms of providing guidance and direction where they can buy fruits and vegetables, how they might use recipes. >> you mentioned incentives. what are being used to incentivize people to make those smarter choices? >> the food and security initiative is providing resources to groups that are provides cash incentives. when a person goes to a farmers market and buy $5 worth of tomatoes, they will be able to buy $10 because of the additional incentive. they get more bang for their buck. it's an opportunity for associations involved to provide sales to provide promotions to provide recipes. there's a series of programs. we will provide you a list of all the grants that have been made under that initiative and

what actually is being done. i think that might be helpful. >> i appreciate it. >> five minutes. four minutes, excuse me. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both to the secretaries for being here. i wanted to expand a little bit on that discussion. i participated and i mentioned it to my colleagues before in the snap challenge earlier this year. the biggest piece that struck me -- clearly, there was an end in sight when i went through this challenge. but it was the budgetary constraints on healthy eating. mr. secretary, you were just talking about those programs and the success that you are seeing in those. and i hope that we can continue to grow those programs. and i understand that within the dietary guidelines, usda and hhs plan to release marketing materials. mr. secretary, you talked about choose my plate as an example.

showing folks how to live on a low budget and a balanced diet. in the advisory committee report, it is mentioned that the best food patterns of healthy living include health u.s. style, mediterranean and vegetarian pattern. do you know approximately how much it would cost to afford each of these lifestyles per week? can you expand a little bit on the programs that educate low income families on healthy purchases like the food insecurity program. >> well, the guidelines help to inform a series of meal patterns. it goes from the high end to the low end. the thrifty food plan basically is the plan -- i don't know the specific dollar amount. obviously, it depends on the choices that people make, congressman. i think we need to sort of dispel the myth that healthy eating has to be more expensive. here is why i think people think that. if you take a portion of potato chips and a portion of broccoli,

in the past the way we judge the value was by looking at 100 calories worth of potato chips and 100 of broccoli. 100 calories of broccoli, probably fill half this room. that's going to be more expensive. what we ought to be doing is looking at portion size. people eat more than three potato chips. when you look at portion size, fruits and vegetables become affordable. number two, if you look at recipes, the use of canned and frozen fruits and vegetables -- we can stretch dollars. we want to provide people with recipes and information that will allow them to use fruits and vegetables more effectively, that it doesn't have to be more expensive and then the incentive programs where we work with foundations to encourage farmers market purchases by incentive -- grocery stores to offer bonus

points for snap families to purchase fruits and vegetables. there's a wide variety of things. and we're also working with food banks to make sure that the areas of opportunity that they have to help struggling families also includes more healthy choices. so there's a wide variety of steps and ways in which we're attempting to make a difference. >> i would love to see more as we can stretch to become healthier. i would say, it was incredibly tough, mr. secretary, to -- my wife and i, $66 on the snap challenge, to include healthy portions and managing our portions. peanut butter and jelly every day for at least one meal because we were trying to have a couple salads for the week. >> the snap program, as everyone knows, is a supplemental nutrition assistance program. it's not designed and not engineered and not funded to be the be all and end all for -- >> for countless americans, it is. >> i understand that.

but it's -- that's why we work with food banks. that's why we work with foundations. that's why we work with shelters. that's why we work with other avenues. that's why we have a school lunch and breakfast program. why we have a summer feeding program, to try to supplement. >> i look forward to working with you to carry out the mission of those programs. >> time has expired. four minutes. >> thank you. i thank you both for being here. secretary burwell, i can count on one finger the number of times a sitting secretary has reached out to the members of a committee prior to the hearing to ask if they had any concerns. so thank you for that. i appreciate you doing that. i know that's time consuming but very thoughtful. historically, the dietary guidelines for america policy documents, which you say will be released in december, have not made suggestions about specific ingredients or commodities, yet that has prevented the committee from taking a look at consumption by the u.s.

population and potential health risks of ingredients such as low calorie sweetener, aspartame is up with of the most widely studied food additives. fda asserted the safety of it. yet dgac used a process to call into question its safety, citing weak science against the backdrop of decades of research that shows otherwise. now we're calling for more research in spite of the fact that fda spent over a decade studying this ingredient and concluded there have no increased risk of cancer. during your review of the guidelines, are you consulting with the fda on recommendations after they spent years reviewing the science? >> yes. fda is a part of process at hhs. with regard to the issue of the safety of aspartame -- there are five products that fda said in

given contents are fine and safe. so, yes, fda is a part of hhs process. >> how do the agencies review impact the final recommendations? >> the review is an extremely important part of the process. i think the secretary and i have indicated that the input of the advisory committee is something that we are reviewing. but our own experts across our departments, not just fda for us but cdc and nih as well. the whole department is a part of this process. it comes together, reviews everything together and that is what forms the recommendations that we will receive from our departments collectively together. >> additionally, dgac recommends replacing sugar drinks with low fat milk and water. we need to meet them in the middle and offer guidelines that's realistic, not idealistic. in your final recommendations, how do you intend to dal ideals that are realistic and achievable?

>> with regard to that question, you are getting ahead of where the recommendations are from our staff. wouldn't be able to comment on the specifics. we do look for a balanced approach and an evidence-based approach with regard to where we have the evidence about issues of when we say balance, it's have the evidence about issues of when we say balance, it's also about the issue the secretary raised of nutritional value. so when you are trying to have a set number of calories and you have to get in certain numbers of nutrition, how you can get that puzzle to fit together is an important part of what we will think about as we put together the final guidelines. >> thank you. secretary vilsack, at the december meeting before the final advisory committee recommendations were voted upon the committee got in a discussion about the definitions of red versus lean versus processed meat. at the end of the discussion, they decided to remove lean meat from the healthy dietary pattern even though the scientific data in their own report was not changed and the same as the 2010 dietary guidelines which

recognize lean meat as a nutrient dense food. it's important for the guidelines to have a strong scientific background to give americans clear advice on their diets and health. can you give me the assurances that you have taken into account to ensure strong scientific evidence is the foundation for the 2015 guidelines? >> i can and i can also suggest, it's my understanding -- maybe i'm wrong about this -- that the report basically is fairly consistent with the recommendation that was made in the 2010 guidelines with reference to lean meat. i would be surprised if our final conclusion is not to include that as part of a healthy diet. >> thank you, sir. >> four minutes. >> thank both secretaries for your efforts in reaching out. i do appreciate that. i think to the degree that we collaborate on a greater basis, we'd all do a better job. a lot of discussion this morning has been talked about the

process in these guidelines. i do appreciate you emphasizing that they are guidelines as a part of a total work product. and i guess i'd like to get your take, both of you, on how we measure success. clearly, we all believe, i think -- i hope it's not in debate, that part of healthy americans is a healthy diet. it's part of preventative healthcare, as our mothers told under the circumstances a long time ago. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. how do we measure success in terms of the incredible changes that have been taking place in america's dietary habits over decad decades? this effort to use these guidelines as the means to provide better diets so that we have healthier lifestyles. have you thought about that in this process? i mean, we're asking you the

questions. how can we make this process better? >> with regard to when we think about success, first the guidelines themselves being a quality product, we need to start with that and that's a lot of the conversation we're having today about an evidence-based and quality product. i think the second thing is how the guidelines get used in an appropriate fashion in terms of people understanding what they are -- >> you think we're making progress? there's a lot of advertising out there that tries to -- among young people, skew their eating habits. >> yes. i think that comes to the third, which is the knowledge has to be activated so that people are acting and behaving. i think those are all places where we believe that we as a nation can improve. we can improve it both at a population health level and then we improve it in the ways we use it in the programs whether that's at the usda or hhs in terms of applying. cdc is another place we can make

progress. >> you have been at this for seven years. w do you measure success? >> i would only add to what secretary burwell said is that, one way potentially of looking at this is to look at the healthy eating index that we have, which is 100-point system. and currently today, the average american is about 57. we have seen improvement over the last couple of years. that's good. obviously, i don't know what your mother said about 57 out of 100, but my mother wasn't satisfied with that. >> no. >> so it's important for us to continue. that's one index. that's one way of measuring. another way is to measure whether or not we're making headway on obesity. i'm pleased by the fact that at least among young children we're seeing some indication of a plateauing and a slight decline in obesity rates. that's good news. we have work to do. in terms of improving the process, i would simply -- i think this debate is healthy because it allows people to understand what these recommendations are and what they aren't. i think it's also -- there's i

think a misunderstanding between a prevention orientation, which is what these guidelines are, versus a treatment orientation, which is a lot of the criticisms often are because you aren't dealing with certain diets that would be helpful in dealing with obesity. so maybe there's a way of which we could potentially expand or create an avenue for that kind of treatment discussion to take place. >> i have other questions regarding gmo labeling and biotech traits as it relates. i will submit that for the record because there's not time. i guess just a final comment. i guess it's getting back to good habits. when i grew up, it was a few years ago, eight-ounce was considered a regular thing. a 12-ounce was really considered big. we were all floored by 16 ounces. today, to see these 24 -- i mean, it's, i think, a large part of our just sizes and

amounts as to obesity. that's a comment. >> time expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretaries. i appreciate the work you are i really appreciate the work you are doing. i taught nutrition for many years. it's very, very important and very important to be science based. i'm encouraged to hear that you make sure it does include a sustainability tax. i wanted to focus on the nutrition evidence library. we've heard much about it with even the usda officials describing it as a gold standard. i have heard concerns that they have ignored a growing body of peer reviewed science on low carb diets as it contradicts the evidence from previous guidelines. can you elaborate on how scientific studies are added to the nutrition evidence library and what can be done to ensure that cutting-edge research in nutrition science is considered? >> well, there are four approaches as it relates to the library. the original systematic reviews.

there are existing reports. there are new reports funneled in from a variety of different locations. there are a review of what the typical diet of american might be, food pattern modelling is also included, so there's a broad array of things that are included in this effort. the issue of low-carb diets raises the point i just made which was representative cost. i think that's ultimately in the context of how do you treat a particular condition, obesity, for example. it may very well be that a low cash -- carb diet or a high meat diet is a way for a fissiphysico

prescribe to deal with obesity. these guidelines are about preventing that to begin with. there isn't an avenue within the guidelines for that treatment discuss. that's i think why there's confusion about all of this and why there's a lot of angst about it, because some people are looking at the guidelines as treating all health issues. we're looking at what the law requires us to do, and that is focus on dietary and nutritional guidelines relative to prevention. >> 52% of u.s. adults are prediabetic. they allege that a low carb diet helps prevent it. it's actually -- would be helpful to include that. >> in that circumstance, you have competing studies, which is why it's important to understand that this is really about well informed opinion. i wish there were scientific facts, but the reality is stuff changes, right? stuff changes. and the key here is taking a look at the preponderance, the greater weight of the evidence and trying to make a judgment based on that. if you have one study on one side and 15 studies on the other side the preponderance of the evidence may be on this side with the 15 studies and, you know, that's a challenge and that's why we do it every five

years to give the opportunity for the quality study to be further enhanced so that five years from now there are 15 studies on this side and 15 studies on this side. it's an evolving process. >> in the guidelines are there any disclaimers mentioned in there that say for certain populations this may not be true or for certain populations this might be helpful? do you include that or do you just pick one and say this is it? >> it isn't so much that it's a caveat that they are guidelines, they are not, you know, you shall do this. there are recommendations and suggestions that you should do this. i think that sort of an indirect way i'm not certain. we obviously haven't crafted the guidelines yet so i don't know whether or not they will be caveats. >> there's got to be differences perhaps for different populations. and so the guidelines may not be one size fits all or do you

present it as everybody, this is for everyone? >> it's a general guideline. it's a general set of recommendations. i mean, in theory you could have 317 million different guidelines because we're all slightly different. and in slightly different circumstances, so you have to create kind of a wide berth here, but within that wide berth, this is what we're recommending. if you're interested in a healthy diet, if you're interested in reducing the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular, this is a course you might want to consider. obviously people will make choices and decisions based on what's best for them. >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. and good morning to you both. thank you so much for your time today. i was just looking at the volume of comments that you'd received. the 29,000 comments after the report came out. can you explain how you're going to and will you be able to meet the time frame that you have for an evaluation of all of those responses to be able to issue that report, the guidelines?

>> yes. our staffs have gone through all of the comments. one of the things that is helpful in a sense is that a large percentage of them actually were form letters. as the secretary reflected, only about 8,000 were individual, not only, but that's less than 29,000 in terms of our ability to get through. and the secretary and i are both working very hard with our teams to meet the deadline of this year. >> okay. great. and i guess my other question is related to moderate alcohol intake. and looking at the guidelines that were issued in 2010 and wondering if that at all -- i noted in the 2015 committee statement that confirm the conclusions from 2010. do we think that that's going to remain the same or moderation, what is considered moderation, will that change as well? >> i think as you appropriately reflect the advisory committee has the identical recommendations from the 2010 report.

while we're not going to comment on specifics, i think it is important to reflect there was no change. >> after this hearing, i may be consulting that guideline. >> the fda would say he meets age requirements. >> and i think that's two for males, right? >> good enough. >> well, i just want to thank you all for the tremendous work that you've done. this is i think really important to the american people. i'm just echoing my colleagues' discussions about proportion sizes and the need for healthy diets, particularly in communities in which there may be a dearth of fresh foods that are available to them as well. and also, you know, let's not forget in terms of our obesity, the thing we haven't talked about which is not just your diet, but your exercise as well which i think is something that americans have been woefully lacking in for our young people for sometime now, so thanks very

much. i yield the balance. >> i don't think the secretary was saying that until after 5:00, did you? >> it will be 5:00 somewhere. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary vilsack, secretary burrwell, thank you both for being here today. i appreciate it very much. because this is an incredibly important issue. and i'm looking at this from a very macro perspective, you know, we've got close to a 20 trillion debt, medicare and medicaid which you referenced a little earlier is such a huge component of that debt, because vast majority of our budget is mandatory spending, medicare and medicaid are a huge component of mandatory spending. and so you consider the obesity issue that we're facing and you mentioned obesity and heart disease as two major components that drive the cost of medicare and medicaid. all that gets back to what we consume.

and i think back to my time when i was in k-12 and versus the schools that i go in today, when i look at the student population, i do not recall, at least, you know, when i was growing up, the number of overweight kids that are in school that you have today. and i visit all kinds of schools all across my district. and i'd say a third of them are clearly overweight. and some of them are really young. i mean, exceptionally young. and some of them i know their parents. i knew their grandparents and obesity was, you know, not an issue in the family until this generation. and so that leads me to think, you know, clearly something has changed in our society over the last 20 years in particular. and i look at it from the perspective of you've got different movements out there

influencing public policy in the dietary guideline advisory committee, you know, there's the statement in there that says, a common characteristics of dietary patterns associated with positive health outcomes include lower consumption of red meats. it was mentioned earlier about caloric diet, trying to maintain a certain number of calories. well, not all calories are the same. i would suggest just from a common sense perspective 2,000 calories of beef versus 2,000 calories of donuts are very different. your body takes the carbohydrate and turns it into sugar and that often goes straight to the

belly. whereas consumption of protein, same calorie amount, the body treats it very differently. in fact, i think if you go and have a blood test done they measure protein level in your blood, which suggests that obviously protein is a key component to a healthy lifestyle. so, my main point that i want to drive home this morning is i think it's very, very important to understand that there's a difference in -- not all calories are the same and from a public policy standpoint, i think perhaps maybe we've gotten too smart for our own good. i recognize science has improved dramatically. but mankind has survived for many thousand a year on red meat, whole milk. in fact, i remember growing up when there was a report that came out that said apple juice was bad for you and then they came out and said, actually, no, we're wrong. eggs, bacon. i remember glow -- growing up and them saying may contribute to high cholesterol and heart

disease. so, i'm -- i want to make sure that we get back to common sense and we do what's right, you know, for future generations because not only for the health standpoint but that translates directly in terms of the public policy decisions we have to make as it relates to our budget. finishing up here, i want to ask both of you -- >> i can't ask anything at this point. we have to keep going. >> no problem. >> thank you, mr. chair. and thank you both for being here and for your time today. first, i want to ask you about dairy. as you know, it has been a distinct food group in the past, and according to the report dairy products contribute many essential nutrients, vitamin "d," calcium, magnesium, iron, vitamin "a," riboflavin. and yet since 2010 1% flavored milks haven't been allowed in schools and we also know that dairy consumption has dropped in

girls ages 4 to 8. i had a couple questions how do we continue to make sure students have access to appealing and nutritious dairy products and do you expect that dairy would remain its own food group going forward? >> well, i don't want to assume what we're going to do in terms of the guidance. i will tell you that one of the things that we've done is to work yogurt into the school lunch program. and we're also taking a look at the issue of milk relative to school meals, so that's in the process. not in the context of the guidelines but in the context of our efforts to try to encourage healthier choices in schools. i don't think there's any question that dairy is an important component. it's going to be recognized and should be recognized. >> and kind of on a different note, given that we have regional, cultural, socioeconomic diversity throughout the country, how will the dietary guidelines meet the challenges of being relevant, accessible, achievable for all americans knowing that folks

have different backgrounds, cultural backgrounds that may impact the types of foods that they're eating? >> i think that many of the programs that the secretary has spoken about in terms of how you put those out, i think it's about having information that's simple enough that you can use it in your own cultural context and then it is about a number of the programs in terms of how the information moves not just the guidelines themselves but then the programmatic piece that follows on. i think it's the step beyond the guidelines, having guidelines that are clear and simple enough that can be applied across context is the first step, but then it's how those guidelines are then implemented. >> right. we're working at usda, native american populations, for example, is a place where we're trying to work to reflect the tradition and culture of native americans and indians to make sure their dietary choices are wide enough and wide enough range that they can meet their cultural and traditional needs.

so, there is i think a greater sensitivity and i think that's the challenge for us in the future which is to understand those differences and to try to figure out creative ways from recipes and from direction and instruction to reflect those differences without necessarily getting into a circumstance where we have to move away from the purpose of these guidelines which is a sort of a general recommendation. >> thanks. i guess it's also, then, important to understand what the messaging might be going forward and how different folks will understand and be able to learn about the guidelines as well. >> well, there will be an extensive effort at both departments but certainly at usda we'll use all the tools we currently have, which have been pretty effective, the my plate has been one of the more effective efforts on the part of the usda. we're going to refresh that obviously. the choose my plate and the super tracker and the information we provide to

s.n.a.p. families and the work on the menus with the school lunch personnel and there's a variety of ways we can incorporate and assist folks in trying to follow these recommendations. >> i need to apologize, mr. rouser, i was brusque and rude, i should have said your time has expired so accept my apologies. >> no problem, mr. chairman. >> mr. kelly, four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, witnesses. the dietary guidelines for americans have been published every five years since 1980. we're concerned that the public at large has lost faith in the process to develop the dietary guidelines which ultimately decrease the adherence to them with potentially costly effects on public health. in the military in my service we often say you can have standard operating procedures but if your units and your soldiers don't know them and use them you don't have an sop. it's the same thing with guidelines. before coming to congress i was a prosecutor and i understand

that two people can look at a problem and come to a different solution and secretary vilsack, during your process you talked about many times the preponderance of the evidence as a prosecutor i didn't get by with that standard because the things i was doing were so important that i had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt my case. because for different things and different priorities the importance of them, sometimes we have to use a different standard of evidence. and i would say maybe a preponderance of the evidence for scientific evidence is not the right standard. maybe it's clear and convincing evidence or maybe beyond a reasonable doubt that when we have science that we hold them to a standard that makes sure that the end result is something that we have a good belief that it will be viable and it will be the right answer. although we won't always be correct if we raise the standard maybe we'll be correct more often. >> congressman -- >> if i can finish, please. there have always been disagreements about this and there always will be about what the scientific is, i just say sometimes we may want to look at the standards.

but over 1350% increase in public comments it raises some concern with me that people don't have faith in the system. so, to both of you, i just ask you what can we do, because it doesn't matter how good the standards are and it does not matter if we're doing the right things if the public doesn't have trust that it's the right thing. we have to build that trust. and secretary vilsack or secretary burrwell, what would you do to make sure that our public believes the standards and the guidelines we're putting forward are the true and correct ones? thank you. >> congressman, first of all, the preponderance of the evidence standard is a congressional mandate, so we have to follow the congressional mandate so if you all believe it should be a higher standard that's obviously your call and whatever your call is, we'll follow it. secondly, i am not sure despite the fact that we had 29,000 comments, we've also had 290

million hits on our choose my plate website which would suggest to me that people are following in these guidelines and are interested in them and they haven't necessarily lost confidence in them so that's another data point that i think is important to take into consideration. i see this as a positive thing. maybe i'm looking at it wrong. but i think the more public input you have, the better the decision making can be and we're obviously going to take all this information into consideration, as we should. and there are a variety of input focuses on all of this and hopefully we're going to come up with the best guidelines that continue to have the faith and confidence in the american public. >> and i would just add even as we implement the statute and preponderance, that as you appropriately indicate there are different levels of evidence and it's related to your colleague's earlier comment about aren't there different populations affected in different ways. and the evidence that we look at whether it's on the issue of sodium and what that

recommendation will be and, you know, what we did last time, it does look at different places where there is more evidence or less evidence and i think that's something that is important to do and i think we do follow statute but we hear your point and the scientific review actually when we get our documents -- >> i got ten seconds if i can have one further point. i just think it's just important that the citizens want to know that we're not using science to justify ideology, that it's the other way around. thank you. and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. davis for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary burrwell, it was great to speak with you last week. thanks for being here and talking about this very important subject. secretary vilsack, i know you're probably going to be surprised by this but i'm not going to ask you about the school lunch today. it has been discussed already, so i'll skip over that. but i do have some concerns. my most serious concern today is what i see as a lack of evidence

to show that the recommended dietary patterns proposed by the dga are based on any evidence on children. according to the citations in some previous advisory reports for recommendations the recommended diet has been tested almost exclusively on middle-aged men and women, whose nutritional needs obviously are very different from young people and growing children. in particular i'm concerned because young children need certain vitamins and minerals obviously to grow and develop. we're talking about where in previous reports the expert report states that their recommended dietary patterns do not meet sufficiency goals for potassium, vitamin "d" and "e" and choline and the vitamin "a" sufficiency may be marginal. these are essential basic nutrients for growth and health

of children. as a dad of a freshman in high school and a coach, these are things that concern me on a regular basis, too. at the same time, the dgac appeared to be deficient in their role in developing nutritional guidance to meet the basic sufficiency for children to grow and be healthy. they were expanding their review of what has been referred to as the dining-out topic, specifically the fast food category was expanded to include other dining categories including quick serve and casual and formal restaurants and grocery store takeout. given today's busy lifestyle and when you look at restaurants, they've offered a lot more healthy choices than what we saw just a decade ago. you know, with that, i'm kind of disappointed, i think others are disappointed, that restaurants seem to be singled out even though they're doing their best to offer healthier options to customers. and that concerns me. and i just find it difficult to understand that location in which we would eat without any other consideration

automatically impacts the quality or nutritional value of the food served. i certainly understand that some restaurants may serve better food than others. but that's the consumer that can make that final decision on that, too. so, secretary burrwell, i mean, wouldn't you agree that the nutrient content of food is more important than where the food is purchased and that rather than directing people away from dining out, maybe we should focus on helping to educate them on their nutritional choices? >> so, with regard to the issue of children and the amount of research and evidence that we have in that space, even as we are preparing to complete where we are now the conversation, my team actually brought up the issue of children yesterday as we look to making sure we have appropriate evidence for a number of the things you're talking about for the next set, because i think what you're appropriately reflecting is the research doesn't exist because it is on older. so we need to get started on that now. with regard to the issue of do we need to understand this better, we don't have the facts yet. we don't have a science base but if we start now we will for the

next. >> right, appreciate that. >> with regard to the dining out question, right now 30% of your calories for americans are consumed outside the home. with regard to how we think about making sure that -- >> what percentage? >> 30%. so, when that is happening, i think what we need to focus on with regard to this issue is making sure people have appropriate information. that's what i think we want to do is make sure that people have appropriate information to make the choices. as you reflect, it's up to people to make their own choices in that context. and i think that's where we touch on that issue. and, again, always separating the advisory committee's work with the work that we are doing. >> thank you, again, both. my time's expired. >> four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here today. i want to follow-up on a few of the thoughts that

a representative had. as a physician i've been involved in peer review science in my training and my career. i'm a little bit concerned about some of the things you guys have said here. you brought up the fact that, you know, the -- i think it was the journal of the ama brought out that 52% of americans are prediabetic or diabetic and yet the dietary recommendations that as i understand it are not really appropriate for that. i mean, there's too much carbohydrates. these people have a carbohydrate intolerance and the more carbohydrates in the diet you are recommending than is really appropriate for that. and you mentioned this would be a treatment. this is really not a treatment. this is a preventive problem. i think that, you know, you have to address that more. i guess those are just some of my comments.

but one of the questions that i had is how are the studies taken -- you know, how do you determine which studies to put in -- to base your science on? i've got evidence that this evidence library included some trials while excludeing several other larger trials. some of which were funded by the nih. i don't know why all the studies aren't included in the data. i mean, how does that not lead me to believe that there is predetermined result that's been looked for? >> well, the process starts with a series of questions that are formulated and then information is accumulated, and it's gone -- it goes through a process of evaluation. >> is the nih involved in this process? >> well, it's involved in the

sense that the nih helps to fund studies that -- >> i know, but i mean, they're not involved as inner agency review of how the studies are picked? >> with regard, i think there are two different processes. there is -- well, three. one is the library of materials that people use and that's housed at usda. i think the second is -- >> is stuff excluded from that library? who makes the choice of what goes in the library? >> well, there's a process that the folks at the national -- >> that's what i'm asking. is the nih involved in that process? i'm just surprised nih funded studies some of which are larger than the studies that you rely on for your data, contradictory studies, funded by the nih, are not included in the data, so i'm

just wondering why. >> if you can give me specific studies. >> i can do that. >> i'll be able to provide you a specific answer as to why that particular study or series of studies were not included or perhaps they were and we're having a misunderstanding. >> my understanding is they're not, that's why i'm concerned because leading me to -- some of your comments suggested that, you know, with diabetes and prediabetes and obesity are major problems in this country and because of the cutdown on the fat portion of the diet, we're recommending more carbohydrates. well, that's exactly the problem that prediabetics and diabetics have is not being able to respond to carbohydrates so so for the majority of the people, 52% of the people being prediabetic, this is the wrong diet to recommend. when you say it's a general diet, well, that's great. but then shouldn't it be, you know, with the caveats that were mentioned? i mean, this is pretty serious stuff here, because somebody else mentioned when we were kids people aren't as fat back when we were kids and we were eating more fat. and frankly, it's not an exercise thing as far as i can see because, you know, i have

experience with that. if you eat a lot, you can't exercise it all off. you have to get it right. >> the time has expired. >> if i could have 30 seconds. i would say that the nel website will provide you the information as to why certain studies weren't selected, but if you get us specific information, doctor, we'll be happy to provide you specific answers to specific studies. >> mr. allen for four minutes. >> yes. i'll just follow up on that question that as far as the nel was concerned, you know, that have -- you know, the -- as far as the dietary guidelines advisory committee did not use the nel for more than 70% of their research questions, why is -- why was the nel not used in these guidelines? >> for certain issues like food pattern analysis that they needed to do to understand what

we actually are eating, an issue that has been brought up a number of times in this hearing, that is not information that would be available there. and they need to turn to other sources for that information to understand what is it actually americans are eating, the sources for that are different. i think there are some other issues. the reason it's not all there if that's not the source of the information can come from, there are certain data analytics and there are places where systemic reviews have been done on the issues and while they do their own systemic reviews, they consider the other systemic

revie reviews, and i don't think those are counted in that percentage. secretary, you probably -- since it's housed -- >> the only thing i would say the review process goes through a series of mechanisms to try to provide an understanding of what the best science is, the best available science is, and the least biased science is. and it's a series of things, the cochran collaboration, the academy of nutrition and dietetics, and all consistent with the data quality act. that's the other parameter that we have to work under that congress has given us direction under the data quality act as to how this is to be managed. >> well, the nel is basically science based. i mean, very little ideology there. they go by exact science. and i am not quite sure -- i didn't quite understand -- i still don't understand why they are not using them as more of a resource in these guidelines. >> they are used extensively. >> extensively. it's only when a question can't be answered -- one of the issues is certain of the data analytics around what everyone is eating right now are different sources is my understanding of why the advisory committee didn't use it. that's the kind of -- >> they didn't have the information on more than 70% of the research? >> i think there are a number of

other places that the advisory committee has to turn to other things and they do that. >> regarding sodium, obviously, you know, there's some of us that retain fluid and there are others who do not retain fluid. sodium, you know, when i was -- back in my athletic career, i took salt pills. and i had a hard time retaining fluid of course, now it's the opposite. i'm on a low-sodium diet. you know, all this stuff is very personal. it depends strictly on, you know, your dna and that sort of thing. in my opinion it's very dangerous to set forth guidelines when, you know, everybody, you know, has a different dna and at different ages you have different requirements and, of course, we already talked about it doesn't apply necessarily as much to children. and i think the mistrust here is that, you know, this one size fits all thing because, you know, folks are getting a lot of bad -- you know, our s.n.a.p.

program, they're really not getting good information and then the consequences are this epidemic of diabetes that we have particularly in georgia with folks who, you know, do not know, you know, how -- how that -- how their diet works and how it fits. is there any way to get this more locally based rather than washington top down? >> i think we want to get it to a place where it is useful and that's part of the conversation. with issues like sodium, we do take care that it is the standard for everyone and for individuals. this is how one implements if it is the standard but if you have a certain disease condition,

then we need to figure out how we in a public health setting and other settings can provide the right information for you. because the iom has set 2,300 milligrams of salt. but perhaps right now for you in your current state that's not actually accurate. >> i'm less than a 1,000 and i yield back. >> we have to make sure even if we set it at 23 that we can have a form in which we can communicate so you know where to turn together with your physician. >> four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and secretary vilsack and secretary burrwell, thank you for being with us. i apologize for my voice. it still hasn't gotten better since yesterday. a couple of themes i've heard especially you, secretary vilsack, stating today you don't want to assume what we'll do with the guidelines. you don't want to predetermine what the outcome will be. is that a fair assessment? >> the process hasn't been completed yet. >> and then one of the other themes i heard you say was that more public input you have the better decisions we'll have. is that fair? >> yeah. >> okay. one of the concerns i have about the process that you're currently following, you know,

my understanding is you have the dietary guidelines that are based on the expert report from the advisory committee. and then that's translated by you and your staff into -- or your departments into actual guidelines. >> that's one aspect of it, congressman. it's not the only thing that we rely on or look at. it's one piece of a large puzzle. >> okay. the concern is i know that we've had a comment period to date and it seems that right now the process only allows for the american people to comment after the committee releases its report. but does not allow for public comment after usda and hhs release the final dietary guidelines. and i appreciate you did extend the 60-day public comment period by an additional 15 days

following the release of the report this spring. but as you can tell from the hearing today, there's still considerable criticism of the report. and there is a provision in the fiscal year 2016 agricultural appropriations legislation that if enacted requires a 90-day comment period after the dietary guidelines are formally released, and this process seems more in line with the administrative procedures act which long predates the current process you're using for the dietary guidelines. and considering the fact that, you know, more than 29,000 comments were submitted on this report, while only 2,000 were received on the 2010 report, it really shows that there's a great deal of interest in this by the public and it seems to me that the public should have a final opportunity to comment on this report before it's finalized. and i guess my question is, would you agree to give the american people another comment period given the fact that the 2015 committee report generated the most comments in the history of the guidelines? >> well, i would -- first of

all, i would point out there were a number of places the public could have input in this process before the public comment period. there were a series of public meetings, opportunities for people to have input and the like. there's also been continued opportunity to have input in the process. the challenge i have, congressman, is when does the process -- you have to have a finality to which you have a stopping point to it. and in order for us to be able to factor into the various other decisions we have to make that are in some place based on the guidelines. so, i'm concerned about how long you extend this process. and i would say, the last thing i would say is, the public does have a way of commenting on this, that is they could decide not to follow them. they could decide to be critical of them once they are proposed. so, i mean, there is an ongoing debate and conversation about this. it never ends. >> i guess my concern is right from the start, you know, you

made the comment and i appreciated it that you didn't want to prejudge what the guidelines will be. it's not a complete process. you're taking in feedback now. but the reality is, once you publish those guidelines, those are the guidelines and there is no avenue for the public to have input on that. and i think that's troubling. >> well, i would disagree with that in the sense that they've already -- there's already been several places where they've had input and they can continue to have input. they continue to respond to the 2010 guidelines which are part of the foundation and the information that we take into consideration, so it's an ongoing education process. i don't think it ever stops. now, there may not be a formalized period of time but it never stops. >> gentleman's time has expired. four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to the witnesses for testifying today. a few questions still come to mind after all this discussion we've had here. and the first one that i have is

that when i look at data on the students that are overweight or obese, do we have any evidence that they were -- which direction their weight has gone? that's the first for miss burrwell. do we have any indication on whether this program is reducing the overweightness of our children in school or whether it might be working against us? >> so, with regard to the specifics of programs in schools, i would refer to my colleague secretary vilsack in terms of those programs. what i think we do know is that younger children we are starting to see overarching across the board, not just from a programmatic school base we are starting to see the numbers go in the right direction. >> i was actually prepared to redirect that question after your response, so thanks for pointing that out. i would say this information, mr. secretary, according to the center for disease control we saw the obesity rate of high

school students decrease by 9% in the four years prior to the healthy and hunger free kids act's implementation and in the four years after that the obesity rate increased by 16%. have you seen any data like that from the centers for disease control and does that cause you to wonder what the result of this might be? >> congressman, i'd be happy to take a look at that information to better understand it. but i think there's no question in my mind this is not a situation where we're going to see fundamental change in a year. i think it's going to be a generational process. and i'm convinced that from a generational process we're going to see progress. i think secretary burrwell's correct, that we have begun to see progress, particularly in younger children. >> this data says the opposite. it says the obesity rate of high school students had reduced by -- we just picked the four years since it's been implemented and went to the four years prior so it was the

longest period of time that we could have that would have balance, four years before, four years after. the four years before the obesity rates went down 9% according to the cdc and the four years after the obesity rate went up 16% according to the cdc. i don't know how to explain that because what i'm getting back from my constituents and across the country is more and more complaints about not enough food for these kids. i would ask, mr. secretary, we're all well aware of the complaints especially as it was implemented in the fall of 2014 and now we're well into the school year of 2015. have those complaints gone up or done in comparison to the previous year? >> they've gone down. in fact, some school districts that left the program have come back into the program. >> i'm glad to hear that. how's that program doing in rhode island spawned by the

waste? it's at north smithfield road island where they are feeding 3,000 pigs with the waste from the school. essentially an industry that's created and i still get a lot of complaints on hungry kids so i'm concerned is there any -- that question and then is there evidence that our students k-12 are getting overweight because of school lunch program or are they eating that food somewhere else that's making them overweight? was there ever any evidence that indicated that it came from the school lunch? >> congressman, in terms of food waste, there's the rudd study at the university of connecticut and the harvard public school study and there's a study at the university of southern california berkeley suggesting that kids are eating more fruits and vegetables, no more food waste and, in fact, are eating more of their entrees than before. so, i don't think there's documentary evidence. there may be anecdotal evidence from school to school and we are obviously focused on the food waste issue.

i'm sorry your second question? >> were there ever getting overweight on school lunch? was there ever any evidence prior to 2010? >> well, you know, that's sort of an interesting question. it could be answered yes and no. yes, because it was part of the overall caloric intake that a young person was taking and if they were taking more than they should then everything they ate in that particular day in a sense contributed. but if you're asking whether or not the number of calories consumed in a school meal, if we fit it within the standard, it shouldn't contribute to obesity. >> either before or after. >> especially if we are reducing fat, sodium and sugar as we are. >> i am out of time. thank you, mr. secretaries. >> mr. newhouse for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you mr. secretary and madam secretary for being here with us this morning. i appreciate your time. i have a couple of observations but also requests and a question or two and try to get through in four minutes.

i've spoken with a lot of impacted constituents. also through my own review. it seems clear that this dietary guidelines advisory committee went outside the scope of their mandate in developing the recommendations for the report. including policy recommendations from taxes to local restaurant zoning to food labeling and sustainability policy. according to the underlying statute that was the sole product of this committee back in 1990, each such report shall contain nutritional and dietary information and guidelines for the general public. secretary vilsack, back in march "the wall street journal" reported you saying and i quote, i read the actual law and what i read was that our job ultimately is to formulate dietary and nutritional guidelines. and i emphasize dietary and nutrition because that's what the law says.

i think it's my responsibility to follow the law. a sustainable diets are an appropriate debate to have you said. however, there are forums and places for that to take place. and i was pleased to hear your comments. but what concerns me is the lack of evidence to suggest that neither of the agencies exercised any effort to instruct the advisory committee on their scope or mandate. when you secretary vilsack and secretary burrwell, your predecessor established the committee you did so under the federal advisory committee act. this act is designed to ensure that the committees formed over the years is objective and accessible to the public. the act has formalized a process for establishing, operating, overseeing and terminating these advisory bodies across government. the dgac members are not full-time employees and rely very heavily on agency staff to carry out their duties. to be clear when i review portions of the report such as the advisory committee's conflicting statements on

encouraging lower meat consumption but higher meat consumptions for the mediterranean diet or when i can see the recommendations on added sugars versus natural sugars or using lower scientific thresholds than the groups like institute of medicine have used, i worry greatly about the process and the guidance and oversight that they've been given. so, i think it would be helpful to the committee for you to provide the committee evidence in writing to confirm that your agencies did, in fact, make attempts to oversee the advisory committee once it became clear they were delving into areas of public policy. in response i would like to see evidence that your agency's provided instructions to the committee during their assembly to ensure they were staying focused on the right guidance and not straying into policies outside of their purview.

i understand the report must be based on the preponderance of scientific and medical knowledge that's current at the time of publication. finally, i would like to welcome your comments on any advice you could give to future secretarios and how they could stay focused on their charter and produce a recommendation that really stays coloring within the lines. i'd appreciate a response. thank you. >> we'll certainly provide response to your questions, congressman, as we are bound to do and we'd be happy to do that in writing. i think my advice to future secretaries will be to continue the process of educating people about what these recommendations are and what they are not and the distinction between the report and the guidelines. there seems -- i've said this several times today.

there seems to be a misunderstanding upon some of the folks that the report equals the guidelines and that is not the case. the report is one aspect of our consideration. one aspect of the data, the information that is used to formulate these guidelines. and to me this debate has been helpful, i hope, in getting a better understanding of precisely what the recommendations are and i think that the discussion we've had today is also healthy as it relates to what is the purpose of these guidelines, is it focused on prevention or is it focused on treatment or should it be focused on both. i think that's a healthy discussion. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. thompson, four minutes. >> thank you, chairman. thank you both secretaries. really, really appreciate you being here. my first question actually is very specific. it's an area i care a lot about. and so my question is, why do americans especially the children over the age of 4 fall short of the recommended

servings of milk and what can we do to remove policies that are hindering milk consumption or promote policies that could enhance milk consumption? >> we can, you know, basically we're taking a look at those issues right now, congressman. and i think that's the goal here is as we learn more, as we understand more, as we re-learn lessons of long ago, that's obviously going to change the direction and focus. that's the whole purpose and the whole reason why we do this every five years. it's an evolving process. as our information evolves our policies will evolve and we are taking a look at the ways in which milk can be introduced into diets in a variety of ways and products. >> we publish these guidelines once every five years and as you said five minutes before you were ready to publish it there's new evidence that probably is contrary to what you're publishing and i would assume, i'm assuming, correct me if i'm

wrong, the rate of research within nutrition is significant which is a really good thing, but the fact is as soon as you publish these guidelines to some extent they're inaccurate and the longer they're there until the next five years, the more inaccurate they are. but when you publish them, doesn't it influence the market? i would argue -- i'm not going to argue. but i would think when it comes to milk at one point the guidelines discouraged milk took all the flavor out of it because somehow fat was bad for you and i know the science today shows contrary to that, but you take the fat, you take the taste out and somehow these guidelines that we do every five years that are never really totally accurate are increasingly more accurate at the end of the five years impacts the ag commodity markets. and so my question for you, you know, given the fact that these were i think under -- i may be wrong. president carter. it would be late '70s when it was originated. are americans healthier or less healthy since the guidelines have been published and,

therefore, in some ways haven't the guidelines somewhat failed? i mean, we're talking about increased obesity. the pentagon is more concerned than ever about having access to -- having kids that would be able to serve in the military. have these guidelines really been successful given disease and chronic illnesses and conditions, and that's not to be a criticism because my second is, then how do we use these in a way that they could be successful? because they don't seem they're accomplishing the objective as you two have very well articulated today. >> so, i think we do want to. i think the issue of obesity is one that has a number of different elements and the physical activity guidelines which are something that congress mandated -- >> as a former rehabilitation guy i'm all in on that. >> that's another piece that i think we need to focus on and we

need to make sure that these things are being used. i think you're right to reflect. the question is what is the critical path issue and what is the counter-factual. that's the other thing that we all can't answer. we're on the wrong trajectory but would the trajectory have been worse and second what is the period. >> let me make a suggestion and get a response the few seconds i have left. it seems like once every five years this doesn't work because it changes. in fact, it can negatively impact ag commodities which is irresponsible to tell people not to eat certain things when the next round of research says that you want to eat more of it. shouldn't we do something in this day and age with technology that would just share the best research with folks, a place where people can go to, to get the best possible information in terms of eating and knowing that that changes all the time? once every five years, i don't think this is effective.

sorry, chairman. >> honestly, this discussion suggests that there is some extraordinarily bright line on science that there is something over here, there is the real science and then over here there's not the real science. the science is evolving. >> that is my point. >> and so -- >> that's what science does. >> it does. so you have to have general guidelines that provide some parameters. >> do we have static guidelines once every five years or do we have -- >> you could theoretically go through this process every year but i don't know that that would be particularly helpful. i think a five-year period is good. obviously it gets better informed. i think this issue of obesity is far more complex than just simply saying because we have these guidelines that somehow we've become an obese nation. i think it is -- it's got to do with the fact that the average kids spends seven hours in front of a screen every day. i mean, that's part of it, right? it is portion size. that's part of it. it is a variety of factors.

so, the guidelines i suppose if every american followed the guidelines, you know, it might be a different situation. but we don't. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. >> thank you, mr. chairman and both secretaries, thank you for being here today. miss burrwell, let me follow-up on what mr. thompson was saying about that as well. we've been hearing ever since i was a kid that eggs were bad and so my grandparents had a lot of powdered eggs because of their age and then eggs were okay later. and beef and red meat and high protein diets are supposed to help you lose weight. someone was talking to me over the weekend they lost weight and they are staying away from fruit because it has carbs and sugar in it. how are people supposed to know when the ideals are changing all

the time, the guidelines? following up on the five-84 thought, is it good to have a s it need to be more -- kind of change what you know and have -- leave the rest alone? what do you think? >> i think the congress, in making a choice on five years, probably made a good choice. the reason for that is, while we've heard about extending the period, let's think that this took 18 months for the advisory committee to do it work, then you had an additional 75 days, the period of comment, for us to receive comments on that. then you have the period for us to review and get out. when you add that up and think about that timetable, if you tried to shrink that, the question is, would you have relevant change? >> i guess what i'm looking at, maybe you have most of the guidelines are going to -- when

you have school books, for example, they throw out the book and you buy a new one, where maybe most of the lesson is fine. you change the elements in there, since it's electronic, and not doing something every five years. let me follow up with, should there be a legislative change, that we should produce that would help the process in? >> i don't know that there should. i think we are like the school books. we are like -- most of this is consistent. i think you reflected in terms of where they were changes. the things that there are key recommendations on have been relatively consistent over the period since the 1980s, in terms of the importance of fruits and vegetables, the importance of a ballanced approach that provide nutrition that's fewer calories than the nation currently consumed. in select areas, it is fair to appropriately reflect that the science has changed. but the dominant picture is a very similar picture over the periods of time. so i also think it's important

to distinguish between the dietary guidelines and what is happening in our popular culture, with regard to different diets that are proposed by different people in different ways. so i think distinguishing that is also an important element. this gets to what are the guidelines and what are they not? >> a lot of different messages being sent. do you think the dietary guidelines can be seen as confusing and difficult to follow? do you think the 2015 guideline will be more straight forward, giving people straight forward ideas of how to follow the pattern they need? will the 2015 be improvement? >> i think we'll work to make things as simple as we can. the real way people interact with these things is actually in their implementation and programs. whether that's the topic we talked about in school lunch or another topic we haven't touched as much on, which is the labeling issues. that's how most people interact

with what the dietary guidelines are. in terms of how they get their advice about what they're going to eat and that sort of thing. >> let me ask, since most of the efforts to follow or be consistent with the guidelines, what does follthat mean to you? >> there are these guidelines, and when we apply those from a perspective of the federal government, to certain programs, they are the base this that we k about promoting the programs. whether that's our meals on wheels program, or our million hearts initiative, to try to reduce the number of people with heart attacks, an important element of that is understanding what the dietary guidelines say. >> thank you. you've had a very difficult job the last year, so thanks. >> your time expired. before we adjourn, any comments for the ranking member? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. first thing i want to say is how

much we appreciate both of you cabinet officials coming before us at the same time. that's a rarity, and we really appreciate it. agriculture is, indeed, our most important industry. it's the food we eat. it's the water we drink. it's our survival. i think you got the feeling from this committee of how important this is. and i hope that what we have discussed today, that you all will take back in the manner, in the spirit in which we have given it, because this is the single most important industry in the world, our agriculture. my hope is that you will take back and understand, even go back and review a bit. secretary, you hit the nail on

the head. when you stated that they sit there before the screen. that's exactly right. when you and i were coming along, folks would say, daddy or mama, can i go out to the playground? that's a phrase we don't even hear now. they go up, i'm going upstairs or downstairs. i'm going to my room. and get on the internet, sit before that screen, hour after hour. that's why it's so important now that we use our science to make up for that. that's why i hope that you will take my suggestions to go back and look and make sure we have -- we're using the strong scientific evidence. and if there are things like the locw calorie sweeteners, where the study showed it will lower

to beast obesity, go back and review and explain why you don't use that. or maybe you look at it and say, you know what? i think we can use this and make a difference. that's why, i think, mr. chairman, this has been an extraordinary and very important hearing, and i thank you for calling it. >> i thank the gentleman. i want to thank our witnesses. this is a big deal, to get you both at the table at the same time. i appreciate that. the emphasis was on the process and restoring trust, if there needs to be restored trust. hopefully the next time that -- the key is, the questions asked for the committee to answer. ms. burwell, it doesn't change much from an issue to issue. if i'm a scientist and i have a body of work that is -- comes to certain conclusions, and i'm going to be hard bent to change my conclusion against new

evidence, that's going to be an issue that's there. hopefully, the next time the question we ask, are the guidelines themselves contributing to the problem? emphasis on carbohydrates, the impact this had on the issues we're talking about, with obesity and diabetes and other things. do we have anybody who is going to live these guidelines for five years so we can see what it did to them? i know you tried to gather that information. the guidelines are important. they're voluntary for me. i'm going to have lunch in a little bit and i'll desiecide f myself. they're not voluntary for school lunch programs and other things. the law in the land in many instances. it's important we get these right. i appreciate both of your comments this morning about limiting the criticisms about the sustainability, taxes. you laid those to rest. thank you for that. the emphasis on staying within the scope that was supposed to be there. i appreciate that. i really also appreciate your

work on trying to clarify that these are guidelines. you've got work to be done between now and december, to make that happen. the idea that perhaps a proposed rule might have some value. i understand, tom, that getting it finished is an important process, as well. i appreciate you coming today and the comments made from my colleagues. under the rules of the committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open for ten calendar days to receive additional material and written responses from the witnesses to any questions posed by the member. we're adjourned.

up next, our series landmark cases continues live on c-span3.

then the discussion on how to counter threats of violent extremism against military personnel. later, developing a framework between the u.s. and mexico on security. all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states, admonish to draw near and give their attention. >> landmark cases, c-span's special history series, produced in cooperation with the national constitution center. exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas between 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> number 759. ernest miranda, petitioner versus arizona. >> arguments, number 18.